THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The bail application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 s. 20(b)(ii)(B)
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR Date : 27.05.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner, namely, Md. Midul Ali @ Md. Mridul Ali has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Special (N) Case No.23/2021, (Rowta PS Case No.176/2021) u/S 22 ©/25/29 of NDPS Act . Page No.# 2/3 The scanned copy of the case record along with case diary is received. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.08.2021 the complainant during Naka Checking at National Highway 15, apprehended two suspected persons and during search, 7.140 kg and 7.550 kg Ganja were recovered from them. Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused, who is a local person has been in judicial custody for 291 days. Mr. Biswas further submits that 7.550 kg of ganja was allegedly seized from the present accused and he is facing trial, where 6(six) prosecution witnesses out of 8(eight) listed witnesses are examined. Therefore, Mr. Biswas submits that further continuation of his detention in judicial custody for the purpose of examination of the remaining two official witnesses may not be necessary. Opposing the bail application, Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Addl.PP, submits that as the trial of the case is at its fag end, the accused’s prayer for bail may not be considered favourably. A perusal of the case record reveals that a charge under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act has been framed on 01.02.2022 and thereafter, 6(six) numbers of prosecution witnesses out of 8(eight) listed witnesses are examined and cross-examined. It is noticed that total 14.690 kgs of ganja was recovered and seized from the possession of the present accused and another at Lalpul under Rowta PS, Dist-Udalguri. The present accused is a resident of vill-Garbhitor under Barama PS, Dist-Baksa, BTR, Assam Having considered the quantity of ganja seized and substantial progress in trial of the case, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the accused in judicial custody for the purpose of remaining part of trial may not be needed. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner named above shall be released on bail of Rs.50,000/- ( Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Udalguri subject to the following conditions- i) That the accused petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Court below on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the case is disposed off: ii) That the accused petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; and iii) That the accused petitioner shall refrain from committing any such offence of which he is suspected of commission. Page No.# 3/3 The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(B).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 27 May 2022. The bench was AJIT BORTHAKUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.